Nearly a year after Cal Poly President Jeffrey Armstrong stood before Congress and pledged to tackle antisemitism on campus, the university says it has revised training and launched a task force — but critics say the work is incomplete as recent incidents and an outside report raise fresh questions about student safety and institutional accountability.
The Anti-Defamation League gave Cal Poly a D in its March 10 report card, citing gaps between the administration’s promises and its response to fallouts that include vandalism and a violent assault. The grade has renewed scrutiny over whether the university’s changes are tangible enough to protect Jewish students and rebuild trust.
Cal Poly has taken several steps since Armstrong’s congressional testimony: it created the Antisemitism Task Force, updated orientation and employee training, and added explicit language addressing antisemitism and anti‑Zionism to the academic catalog. Still, administrators and outside observers disagree about whether those measures amount to meaningful progress.
Oklahoma City Lowe’s targeted in thefts: police open investigation
San Luis Obispo council considers crackdown on Greek life: students could face new rules
- Feb. 28: A member of the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity was assaulted off campus; suspects allegedly used antisemitic slurs. Local police are leading the investigation.
- June 2025: Pro‑Palestinian protesters vandalized the Student Accounts/financial aid office; the ADL criticized university statements that condemned the acts without explicitly acknowledging antisemitic intent or referencing the Jewish community.
- Sept. (prior year): Cal Poly formed the Antisemitism Task Force and revised student and employee education programs, including integrating content into Week of Welcome events for 2025 and 2026.
- March 10: The ADL released its report card assigning Cal Poly a D, prompting the university to dispute the rating publicly.
Matt Lazier, a university spokesperson, described the task force’s membership as a mix of campus staff, faculty and students plus five representatives from the local Jewish community. He confirmed two student members by name and said the group is exploring donor support for a proposed interfaith center.
In an email to campus media, Lazier reiterated the administration’s stance: discrimination of any kind conflicts with Cal Poly’s mission and the university aims to strengthen its programs and support systems. That message echoes Armstrong’s testimony, which emphasized training updates and stronger disciplinary pathways for students implicated in bias incidents.
Armstrong’s statements at the congressional hearing also promised accountability. He warned that students found responsible for antisemitic conduct would face adjudication up to expulsion; at the time of his testimony, several students had already been suspended or put on probation.
Still, the ADL maintains the university has fallen short of its commitments — pointing in particular to the administration’s public reactions to the June vandalism and to ongoing campus reports of antisemitic behavior. For critics, language and policy changes do not yet equal a demonstrable change in culture or outcomes.
What happens next is concrete and time‑bound: the Antisemitism Task Force plans to deliver a formal campus action plan to Armstrong in June. That report will be watched closely by students, community leaders and advocacy groups for signs that Cal Poly can translate policy revisions into safer day‑to‑day life on campus.
The immediate stakes are clear: beyond reputational risk, the university faces questions about whether its measures will prevent harassment and violence, satisfy donors and community partners, and restore confidence among students who feel targeted. The upcoming action plan — and how the administration implements it — will determine whether critics accept Cal Poly’s progress as sufficient.
